9.1 Team Structures and Change Agent Networks

When considering a change initiative it is important to consider the variety of teams and team structures that exist in organisational life. Most people now work in multiple teams — the work team through which they are managed, such as Customer Services, and others.

Why team structures matter

Team structures can be harnessed to provide energy and direction for the change, or they can become obstacles. CM3 makes a specific point about the teams outside the formal reporting line:

Activities beyond the immediate work team provide different loyalty groups, which may be important to many people. If these are disrupted by a proposed change, and no adequate attention is given, the commitment and willingness of people to make the change work may be compromised.

This is easy to miss during impact assessment, because loyalty groups rarely appear on an organisation chart. A project community of practice, a cross-site working group, a shift team that has worked together for years, a professional network — all of these can matter more to an individual's sense of belonging than their formal team does. A restructure that leaves reporting lines intact but dissolves a long-standing cross-functional group can produce far more disruption than its formal footprint suggests. In SCARF terms it is a relatedness threat, and relatedness threats are consistently underestimated.

Change agent networks

A change agent is anyone who acts intentionally but without formal line authority to facilitate change in the organization. When going through a change of any significant size, many organisations establish a specific network of change agents, or champions, to support it.

Membership consists of on-the-ground internal staff, usually one representative for each area, department or team affected by the change. The change agents are nominated by their area to work on the change alongside their day job.

The benefits

CM3 lists what change agent networks offer:

• One dedicated person to assist in the information flow from the change team to each specific business area and back
• A network of people across the organisation who can break down silos and look at the effects of the change and possible solutions across different departments
• A manageable-sized group with which to develop and test ideas, approaches and solutions
• A source of information and a feedback mechanism for affected staff that is trusted and 'one of us'
• A group of users with in-depth knowledge about the change, who can challenge, constructively criticise and suggest the best ways to approach the change for their particular areas
• Expert users for new processes or systems brought about by the change

The phrase trusted and 'one of us' captures why networks outperform central communication: the messenger's local credibility is the asset, which is Kelman's identification level operating deliberately.

Recruiting the right people

It is important to recruit the right people into the network, and this requires some effort. CM3 identifies a genuine tension:

• Change agents represent their colleagues for much of the change planning, so they must be established and respected enough within their areas for people to trust them with the tasks
• But recruit someone too high up — a team manager or head of department — and they probably will not have the time to dedicate to the role

The suggested resolution: use the change agent role as a development activity for a team member who can carry out the role supported by their manager and team leader. They then have legitimacy for the role amongst the team, and access to team leaders when necessary.

This is an elegant answer to the tension. The team member has peer credibility, the manager's backing supplies the authority they lack, and the individual gains a genuine development opportunity — which in Pink's terms provides mastery and in SCARF terms protects status at exactly the point when change is threatening both.

Sizing the network

The use of change agent networks, like all change resources, needs to be scaled up or down to match the size, scope and speed of the change. The considerations when planning the size of the network are:

1. The impact of the change on everyday work
2. The complexity of the change and the amount of training and support that will be required
3. The number and variety of stakeholders who will be affected
4. The geographical spread of the stakeholders
5. The organisation's previous experience with changes of this nature
6. The time allowed to complete and absorb the change

A point the exam tests: the individual change agent's own level of skill and knowledge is not one of these considerations. That is a recruitment and induction question, not a sizing question — sizing is driven by the shape of the change and the population, not the calibre of any individual agent.

Inducting the network

Once the network is established, change agents need to be inducted into the change programme, with activities including:

• Understanding what changes are being planned and the expected benefits
• Getting to know the change team, including the sponsor, and other colleagues in the network
• Being exposed to any proposed solutions — new IT systems, target operating models, new processes — in order to give early feedback and begin to think about how the changes will impact their area
• Being trained on how to support their colleagues through change, and also in how to undertake basic coaching

That last item has a benefit beyond the current initiative: it is especially useful in maturing the organisation to deal with change, as the knowledge and skill can be transferred to other changes once this one has been completed. Training a change agent network is therefore an investment in the organisation's change maturity, not just in this change's delivery — which is one of the few change activities with a return that outlasts the programme.